На сегодняшнем занятии “Домашней школы” я предлагаю взглянуть на опрос “человек тысячелетия” изнутри. В декабре The Times опубликовала статью, которая называется “Fat, despotic, but man of the moment?”. Ее автор, Rod Liddell – редактор популярной радиопрограммы Today. В день завершения опроса он делится с читателем своими наблюдениями и размышлениями.
Fat, Despotic, but Man of the Moment?
Rod Liddell on choosing the personality of the millennium
Nominations for the Today programme’s “Person of the Millennium” closed this morning. Thousands have taken part; a shortlist is being drawn up and voting will take place next week. It is now too late for anything terrible to happen. I wish I could adequately express my sense of relief.
My first act on becoming editor of Today, one year ago, was to rifle through the previously closed files at the back of my new office to find out, at last, how much everybody earned. There I found a tightly bound bundle of some fifty or sixty plain white, franked postcards, each bearing the legend: “I nominate Teresa Gorman MP as Today Personality of the Year, 1995.” They had been stuffed there, as if they were in some way dangerous, or pornographic.
It was clear, from reading these postcards, that Mrs Gorman had a great many admirers – who were prepared to emphasize the unanimity of their support by writing these nominations with the same pen. And posting them from the same Commons postbox. On the same day.
I should point out that Mrs Gorman – a popular Today programme guest, then as now – cheerfully denied any knowledge of a concerted nomination campaign. Somebody else must have been behind it. But those mouldering postcards should have been an early warning to any new editor thinking of exhuming the competition. It was one I ignored because, I thought, things are different now. In those febrile last years of the Conservative Government – its majority as slender and tenuous as the surface tension of water – the political parties would grasp at pretty much any straw. If winning Today’s annual competition meant an extra half a percentage point in the polls, then it was well worth the parties orchestrating a campaign to that end among activists. This is what happened and it caused so much trouble that the contest was abandoned for the foreseeable future.
So, this year, we discussed our options and decided – with blithe confidence – that a British Person of the Millennium would obviate all possible problems; nobody would attempt to hijack this for their own political ends. Yes, we acknowledged, there’s a certain ludicrous element to the poll – how could one compare the achievements of Horatio Nelson with those of William Caxton, for example – but it would provide an interesting debating point about what we value from our past, and which qualities we saw as essential to our “Britishness”. Schools would be involved. Today contributors would be invited to make their own nominations. It would be contentious without being – how can I put this? – difficult.
The problems began with Jesus. Two hours after the telephone lines opened it was looking a good bet that He would win, despite being, in our view, inelegible to do so. I was dismally aware of the likely newspaper headlines – “BBC Bosses Ban Christ” – and equally aware that bending the rules on His behalf would store up more problems than it solved. How would committed Christians, who had taken our poll as literally as was intended and voted for somebody from Britain, feel when Christ suddenly appeared on the shortlist? I tentatively rang some of those who had nominated Him, pointing out our – perhaps small-minded – objection to the “of Nazareth” part of His name. Many listeners replied that, in a very real sense, Christ was as “British” as he was any other nationality. My response was to the effect that we were limiting nominations to those figures physically, rather than spiritually, located in Britain during the past one thousand years. I added, for good measure, that we’d also banned Satan (though not Ale
ister Crowley, who picked up one nomination). I’m not sure my arguments won them over; one listener put the telephone down with the words “. . . and on His birthday, too”.A similar problem arose with William the Conqueror but here we were prepared. He may have spoken French – so, too did another popular nominee, Chaucer – he may even have been born in France, of Scandinavian extraction. But if he isn’t British, who is?
Now we’re left with a batch of twenty names from which a shortlist of six will be drawn up. Without giving too much away, the list is strong on writers, artists, scientists and very low on military leaders and monarchs. I regret the almost complete absence of philosophers and social reformers. In my darker moments, I might have nominated Thomas Carlyle, but I’d have been the only person in Britain to do so. The votes for Locke and Hobbes, Burke and Smith are lower than I would have expected – a result, I suspect, of a direct ideological split rather than the old canard that Britons are traditionally mistrustful of intellectuals.
The names we’re left with are, with one exception, those who have achieved brilliance, rather than had it thrust upon them; they are, perhaps, uncontroversial and even politically correct. If it serves as a picture of what we value about Britain, then the Today poll reveals a people dismissive or forgetful of our imperial past.
The exception to the rule is a fat despot who, at least in his dealing with women and roman Catholics was, to paraphrase Thurber, further to the Right than a soup spoon. He was in fourth place last time I looked; Henry VIII is a dark, dark horse.
На этом занятии нам, пожалуй, нечего рассказать ученику, автор все рассказывает сам. Но проблем для обсуждения он, на мой взгляд, предлагает довольно много. С чего начать, пожалуй, ясно. Можно задать ученику вопрос о том, как он относится к конкурсам такого рода и попросить обосновать свое мнение. Независимо от его отношения, можно попросить ученика составить собственный список десяти “людей тысячелетия”, а потом, может быть на следующем занятии, обсудить с ним его выбор. Давая задание, вы, по всей видимости, будете ориентироваться на склонности ученика и либо предложите ему делать выбор в какой-то одной сфере человеческой деятельности – политике, литературе, науке, либо вообще не будете его ограничивать.
А теперь посмотрим на статью более пристально и зададим ученику, например, такой вопрос. Выдвижение кандидатур на конкурс завершилось, и автор статьи пишет: “I wish I could adequately express my sense of relief”. Чем можно объяснить это чувство? Какие чувства испытывал бы ваш ученик, будь он организатором подобного конкурса? От этого вопроса естественно перейти к следующему: как ваш ученик организовал бы выборы человека тысячелетия?
Мне представляется интересной та часть статьи, где затрагивается вопрос национальной принадлежности кандидатов, “Britishness”. Обратите внимание ученика на этот фрагмент: “A similar problem arose with William the Conqueror but here we were prepared. He may have spoken French – so, too did another popular nominee, Chaucer – he may even have been born in France, of Scandinavian extraction. But if he isn’t British, who is?” Согласитесь, здесь есть что обсуждать. И проблема эта выходит далеко за пределы Британии.
Можно отметить еще и то, что к конкурсам такого рода проявляют интерес некоторые политики – с этого примера начинается статья. Стоит, наверное, сказать и том, что от списка кандидатов, за которых в результате будут голосовать слушатели, зависит доброе имя программы: “BBC Bosses Ban Christ” – такой заголовок представляет себе автор статьи.
Уже довольно давно мы, домашние учителя, рассказываем нашим ученикам об особенностях современной британской культуры. Мне думается, что на этом уроке, после того, как ученик прочел предложенную статью, мы вполне можем попросить его рассказать, какие из этих особенностей проявили автор статьи и слушатели, выдвинувшие своих кандидатов на конкурс. Эта задача достаточно трудная, чтобы быть интересной, и достаточно легкая, чтобы с нею справиться.
Наталья Хмелик